Fund entitled to €1.3m summary judgement against businessman

By Ann O'Loughlin

A financial fund is entitled to summary judgement of €1.32m against a Dublin businessman, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan ruled that Launceston Property Finance Designated Activity Company was entitled to summary judgment against John Walls, a businessman of Coney Hill, Balbriggan, Co Dublin.

The judge said that Mr Walls had failed to establish he had a fair or reasonable probability of raising a bona fide defence to the claim.

In this case, the Judge said, "it is clear to me that Mr Walls has no defence."

In 2014 Launceston acquired a portfolio of loans from IBRC, including loans of approximately €1m that the now defunct Anglo Irish Bank advanced to Mr Walls in 2008.

Launceston made a demand for repayment of the loans in November 2016 seeking €1.32m from the businessman.

When the demand was not satisfied Launceston launched High Court proceedings seeking summary judgment from Mr Walls.

Mr Walls opposed the fund's application for summary judgement on the basis he had an arguable defence against the claim and the court should remit the matter to a full plenary hearing.

Mr Walls' grounds included that the demand had been the subject of a binding agreement entered into between the parties in 2016.

He claimed that the compromise had been negotiated between his solicitor Mr James Flynn and an asset manager with Pepper Finance Corporation who acted as agents for Launceston.

Launceston, which rejected all grounds raised on Mr Walls' behalf, denied any binding compromise between the parties had been entered into.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Noonan said all that had been raised in regards to the alleged compromise were "mere assertions," that were "not supported by any evidence."

Nothing had been advanced to the court by the defendant that would allow it come to the conclusion that an arguable case had been raised on this point.

Mr Justice Noonan also dismissed further arguments raised on Mr Walls' behalf including that because Anglo Irish Bank's decision to advance monies to Mr Walls without any adequate investigation or inquiry into his capacity to repay the amount borrowed gave rise to a defence of contributory negligence.

Mr Justice Noonan said that argument was misconceived, adding that a claim for money due and owing cannot be regarded as a claim for "damage".

Mr Justice Noonan further rejected Mr Walls claim that Launceston's proofs were not in order because the loan transfer deed evidencing the transfer of his loan to the fund was heavily redacted.

The Judge said he rejected that submission and said it is now "well-settled" that in claims of this nature it is accepted that plaintiffs are entitled to redact documents for reasons of commercial sensitivity and privacy rights of third parties.